Y2Jimmy0 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Matt Spiegel has been proposing a Puig for Quintana deal all morning. Matt Spiegel @MattSpiegel670 12m12 minutes ago Avisail Garcia and Jose Quintana for Yasiel Puig. Who says no? I love Quintana but Puig is the type of talent I'd ideally want in return for him. Supposedly, Abreu and Puig don't get along. Thoughts, everyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneofthemikes Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 11:14 AM) Matt Spiegel has been proposing a Puig for Quintana deal all morning. Matt Spiegel @MattSpiegel670 12m12 minutes ago Avisail Garcia and Jose Quintana for Yasiel Puig. Who says no? I love Quintana but Puig is the type of talent I'd ideally want in return for him. Supposedly, Abreu and Puig don't get along. Thoughts, everyone? I can't see Quintana being moved for anything unless the Sox have already signed Samardzija to an extension. Can't afford to potentially lose 2 of your top 3 pitchers in less than 6 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 12:14 PM) Matt Spiegel has been proposing a Puig for Quintana deal all morning. Matt Spiegel @MattSpiegel670 12m12 minutes ago Avisail Garcia and Jose Quintana for Yasiel Puig. Who says no? I love Quintana but Puig is the type of talent I'd ideally want in return for him. Supposedly, Abreu and Puig don't get along. Thoughts, everyone? I'd do Q for Puig, but if they want Avi, I think we should get a couple prospects in return like De Leon and Verdugo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 not sure why we'd need to give up Avi even if it doesn't make sense to keep him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 12:21 PM) not sure why we'd need to give up Avi even if it doesn't make sense to keep him. Basically what I said unless LA would send some prospects over as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES! Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 I'd do Q for Puig straight up. Then Puig can take over right field full time and Avi can be a DH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Dodgers badly want to move Puig to add a pitcher and give them protection for Grienke walking. Given surplus value in Q, I think the base package make sense, but If I am Rick, I want something else in addition. I'm willing to dangle Anderson if we get Seager back (upgrade of prospects). I'd also be willing to include Avisail or some bullpen pieces as well to help get another more valuable prospect in return. I do think if we got a young outfielder, Puig would be one that made a lot of sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 I say no. Why would the Dodgers want Avi when they have too many outfielders as is? From a Dodgers POV, the point in moving Puig is to get rid of his s***ty egocentric childish attitude while while trading away from a position they already have too many players for. I would not trade Q straight up for that head case not to mention Puig's numbers are not all that impressive this year. Pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunt Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Would do this no problem as long as he and Abreu were on good terms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 How about throw Austin Barnes in as well. It'd make Laroche expendable too and we could have Avi dh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmarComing25 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) Very intriguing, I'm not leaning one way or another on this deal (Q for Puig straight up that is). My biggest concern is Puig's potential chemistry issues. Edited July 17, 2015 by OmarComing25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shysocks Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Does it make me a homer that I think the Dodgers would have to throw something in besides Puig? Puig is making more than Quintana over the next 3 years, then throw in the two beneficial team options in Q's deal, Puig's slumping numbers without the benefit of a silly high BABIP, LAD's need to clear away outfielders... I think the Sox say no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 10:27 AM) I say no. Why would the Dodgers want Avi when they have too many outfielders as is? From a Dodgers POV, the point in moving Puig is to get rid of his s***ty egocentric childish attitude while while trading away from a position they already have too many players for. I would not trade Q straight up for that head case not to mention Puig's numbers are not all that impressive this year. Pass. Dodgers trade is focused on them adding pitching. If you moved Avi, he wouldn't have much value to LA, unless they wanted to have some depth back for Puig (which they very well might). It isn't like they are going to hand every at bat to Ethier (although they have Van Slyke who is solid and could easily handle some more AB's as well). Q is the key piece and I think when push comes to shove, you have to widely consider the move (although I'd have to look into hte detalis of Puig's contract and realistically what his cost would be during next few years. Adding Puig does mean you need to move at least one of Melky / LaRoche / Avi. I'd probably move LaRoche first, as Avi / Melky still have a bit more value in the sense that they can play multiple positions. Would also allow you to save some money. However, I'd also think about moving Avi and a Tim Anderson in a trade to a team to get a top prospect we like (as a 3rd team to help facilitate a prospect move). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Puig for Shark, Micah Johnson, and Montas? Too much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 QUOTE (shysocks @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 10:33 AM) Does it make me a homer that I think the Dodgers would have to throw something in besides Puig? Puig is making more than Quintana over the next 3 years, then throw in the two beneficial team options in Q's deal, Puig's slumping numbers without the benefit of a silly high BABIP, LAD's need to clear away outfielders... I think the Sox say no. Yeah, it is why I said I'd want more (I'd be willing to give up more to make it happen to) but I'd want one of the Dodgers top 50 prospects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 QUOTE (knightni @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 10:34 AM) Puig for Shark, Micah Johnson, and Montas? Too much? I am not trading Johnson and Dodgers would have no interest in Johnson. I'd trade Puig for Shark. Not sure if Dodgers do. They would be looking at Shark / Grienke as FA and it seems like the pitchers they are targeting are signed. That said, if It meant giving up Montas and Shark for Puig, I'd be willing. I'd be willing to move Shark, a position prospect (or a reliever), and Avi for Puig as well. Don't think Dodgers do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsox Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 As long as this thread is talking about trading Q for an outfielder, why not Q for Cargo? I would rather have Cargo than that head case from LA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 12:26 PM) Dodgers badly want to move Puig to add a pitcher and give them protection for Grienke walking. Given surplus value in Q, I think the base package make sense, but If I am Rick, I want something else in addition. I'm willing to dangle Anderson if we get Seager back (upgrade of prospects). I'd also be willing to include Avisail or some bullpen pieces as well to help get another more valuable prospect in return. I do think if we got a young outfielder, Puig would be one that made a lot of sense. You'd be willing to dangle Anderson for SEager? Like...top five prospect in all of baseball seager? I mean, yeah of course you would but we couldn't even get Seager for Q straight up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 QUOTE (oldsox @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 12:36 PM) As long as this thread is talking about trading Q for an outfielder, why not Q for Cargo? I would rather have Cargo than that head case from LA. Really? Cargo can barely play 80 games a year it seems like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shysocks Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 QUOTE (oldsox @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 12:36 PM) As long as this thread is talking about trading Q for an outfielder, why not Q for Cargo? I would rather have Cargo than that head case from LA. CarGo is a player in decline. We'd be getting ripped off big time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Have you seen CarGo's contract? We wouldn't claim him even in an Alex Rios waiver wire type of deal. As far as chemistry/discipline, I'm pretty sure Ventura's not the right manager to match him with...still, on talent alone, I'd gamble and make that trade because we do have Fulmer, whoever we get for Samardzija, Montas and Erik Johnson. Offense is always going to be more the issue than pitching over the next 2-3 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 QUOTE (oldsox @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 10:36 AM) As long as this thread is talking about trading Q for an outfielder, why not Q for Cargo? I would rather have Cargo than that head case from LA. Bigger contract and while both are injury prone, Cargo is more injury prone. It would be, in my opinion, insane to trade Q for CarGo. CarGo hasn't even put up a 100 OPS+ last year or this year and only played in half the games last year. Puig makes less money. Puig isn't a FA until 2020 (vs. Cargo in 2018), is far younger, and has put up OPS+ of 159, 143, and 119 in past 3 seasons. You don't like the downward trend but the #'s are still very strong and the downward trend sample size is still small for this year (as the 143 from last year was still by all standards, exceptional). I think when push comes to shove, Puig is a generational type talent. Headcase, yes, but change of scenery would do well as would potentially surrounding him with some mature Cuban players. I realize all the talk about Puig / Abreu and whether they like each other or not, but I could see a lot of scenario's where Puig coming here is a major boom for him. More, I think about it, when I consider marketing upside and other aspects, while I think baseball wise (including contract) Q is more valuable than Puig, given our needs (and factoring in marketing aspects), I'd probably give up something else to get Puig. Puig has the chance to be one of the better players in baseball history. His 1st two years at his respective age put him in very rare air. The fact that he is even on the block is related to maturity issues (which could blow up in our face) and Dodgers have glut in that respective area. You think about 30 years from now, is it likely that a revisionist history article is talking about the Sox and how they could have had HOF Yasiel Puig for Jose Quintana. I find it less likely that their is an article about Q in the hall and Puig being the bust and how different it would have been had the Sox not made the move. Bottom line, this is a potential franchise changing move and would fill a major need for athleticism, excitement, and quite frankly a heck of a bat (who has all the defensive tools in the world...although he clearly has some fundamental issues). If there was 1 player on my wish list where we have a remote shot, Puig is that guy. He is the type of baseball player people go to watch. He is exciting (good and bad) and can do something you've never seen before (good & bad) in any at bat or really on any play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenSox Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 12:14 PM) Matt Spiegel has been proposing a Puig for Quintana deal all morning. Matt Spiegel @MattSpiegel670 12m12 minutes ago Avisail Garcia and Jose Quintana for Yasiel Puig. Who says no? I love Quintana but Puig is the type of talent I'd ideally want in return for him. Supposedly, Abreu and Puig don't get along. Thoughts, everyone? A lot of people don't get along with Puig. No. Puig is a good player, but not great. Quintana for Puig is a "fair" trade, but not one I would do. Puig's production has declined each season. Certainly wouldn't throw Avi in there. Cargo? Good lord. The Sox signed its Cargo - Melky Cabrera. And you would get Cargo for 1 more year. Edited July 17, 2015 by GreenSox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 10:37 AM) You'd be willing to dangle Anderson for SEager? Like...top five prospect in all of baseball seager? I mean, yeah of course you would but we couldn't even get Seager for Q straight up. I don't know about that. And I said that would be my starting price. Didn't say we would get him and the more I think about it, I'd actually be willing to give on the other side to get Puig. And I think their is potential Dodgers would give up Seager (or Urias) for Q. I just don't know that I could do that if I'm the Sox. The 1 for 1 upside isn't that great vs. the potential downside (Seager or U bust and we ended up losing a well above average cost controlled player). It is why if I'm moving any of our top cost controlled pitchers for a prospect, I'd need multiple top prospects back. Q is proven, cheap and cost controlled...I'm not trading him for someone who is all of those things except proven with the potential upside maybe being a tick better then Q. Puig's upside is game changing star. I'll trade Q for that. In fact, for 2 years, he was right behind Trout (and maybe ahead of Harper) when it came to the games most exciting young players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 10:43 AM) A lot of people don't get along with Puig. No. Puig is a good player, but not great. Quintana for Puig is a "fair" trade, but not one I would do. Puig's production has declined each season. Certainly wouldn't throw Avi in there. Put a list together of guys at age 22 and 23 respectively, put up OPS+ > 140 in both seasons (159 & 143, repectively). The below is a lil bit dated article, but look at the names on that list. If we turn down the shot at Q, Lip is going to be writing an article about how one of the greatest players in baseball history could have been a White Sox. The upside of a Q for Puig package (maybe Sox give up a guy on their side or Dodgers add a name, but primary package being these 2) is going to be with the White Sox, imo. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/yasiel-puigs-historic-start/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.